But the Facebook blowback didn't end there for DiNovo. For International Women's Day, DiNovo posted a status update on Facebook in support of equal pay, affordable child care, homes for all women, and freedom from violence for her sisters around the world. She followed up with a comment post specifying all women, including Iranian women who are being tortured.

A number of her "friends" (like most politicians, she "friend-collects" and currently has over 4000 friends) posted well-thought-out and respectful comments about her support for the Conservative motion against Israeli Apartheid Week, a motion which accused Palestinian rights activists of "hate speech" for using the word "apartheid", and branded them anti-semites.

The discussion thread is currently around 30 posts long, and would be much longer, except that DiNovo (or whomever looks after her page) keeps deleting most of the dissenting posts from her "friends", and then apparently defriending a good number of them.

This has not stopped the flood of posts. Except that now, people are starting to post them not just in that thread, but on a number of her most recent activity announcements on her FB page about the issue itself, and also asking her why she's been deleting her comments.

What I find really interesting about this whole situation, beyond the politics around the Israeli Apartheid Week motion, is how social media is somewhat of a leveller now. Politicians who want to do the folksy "Be my friend!" thing and "I'm such an approachable person of the people!" thing on social media like Facebook will discover that their "friends" might just treat them like "friends" and speak their minds when you do or say something that hurts them.

And if you try to respond with the usual politician damage control, by deleting comments by your "friends" and "defriending" them - it just makes the situation worse, because they have almost as much (and often more) power as you do on a medium like Facebook.

So the more people she defriends, and the more people's comments she deletes, the more power she gives to this new group that is protesting her inaccessibility and her refusal to hear criticism from people she has disappointed.

It's an interesting dynamic. Should be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Macdonald J E Stainsby
Since you are a Christian, I strongly encourage you to read Bishop Tutu's repeated statements about Israeli apartheid. You may even want to reflect on Jimmy Carter's book a bit. And then think again about why siding with a PC member with a known Zionist history plays in the hands of those whose real interest is to shut down any meaningful debate ... See moreabout Israel's policies and practices. I would be very surprised if you truly thought that Shurman's motion was going to serve the cause of democratic debate!

3 hours ago

Matt Fodor
Well said. I've also yet to hear a denunciation of IDF Appreciation Week from Cheri.

From the "I was defriended" group discussion area - someone reconstructed the discussion thread on DiNovo's wall from just before he was defriended, including a bunch of posts that were later deleted.

I was interested to see that the first post was by a very good friend and colleague of mine - and it was moving, excellent, and perfectly respectful. And perfectly on topic, considering that DiNovo opened the door to international solidarity comments with her invocation of Iranian women being tortured.

Did Marchese get up and speak in favour of the motion in the Legislature? I wouldn't have cared so much if she was just there and had "abstained" (whatever that's supposed to mean in a voice vote), but she spoke in favour and thanked Shurman for bringing forth the motion. Marchese didn't do that.

Unionist, since not everyone is on Facebook, I'm going to reproduce that FB note here, since it's excellent, and the author said we should feel free to disseminate it publicly:

Quote:

How Cheri DiNovo Responds to Critics

[UPDATE 8:28 PM, MONDAY 8 MARCH 2010]

New FB group "I Was Defriended by / I Defriended Cheri DiNovo" created at:http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=362822283648#!/group.php?gid=362822283648 Please join.

=====

[ORIGINAL NOTE CREATED AT 1:53 PM, SATURDAY 6 MARCH 2010]

Yesterday I posted the note that I quote below as a comment in response to a thread on Cheri DiNovo's wall. Today I found out that I and a lot of others who criticized her for her vote with Peter Shurman against IAW have been defriended and our comments deleted from her wall. That's her prerogative, of course.

Cheri was my MPP when I lived in the westend where I supported her campaign, and she's been a FB friend for a long time - on her request, as I remember - starting from last year's York strike, when a lot of provincial NDPers were reaching out to campus activists, I guess to build up their FB support base.

I won't comment on Cheri's intolerance of criticism. It needs no comments. What I'm interested to know is what NDP is going to do to build up its credibility, assuming any of it left to build on. I'm also interested to hear ideas of how we can respond to this.

Here are the comments I had posted yesterday on her wall, for the records. I've made it accessible to everyone, so please feel free to share.

===

Dear Cheri, as an Iranian-Canadian who used to live in your riding and vote for you, I was really disappointed with your siding with Peter Shurman's conservative attack on the use of the term apartheid in relation to Israel. I was even more disappointed with your convoluted reasoning which read as if you presume all supporters of Palestinian rights are Muslim, all Muslims think the same and your conversation with one or two of them in your close circle gives you a deep understanding into what "Muslims" think about the issue and what's good for "Muslims" and Palestinians at this juncture. Did you talk to any of the many Palestinians and their solidarity allies in this city?!

Since you are a Christian, I strongly encourage you to read Bishop Tutu's repeated statements about Israeli apartheid. You may even want to reflect on Jimmy Carter's book a bit. And then think again about why siding with a PC member with a known Zionist history plays in the hands of those whose real interest is to shut down any meaningful debate about Israel's policies and practices. I would be very surprised if you truly thought that Shurman's motion was going to serve the cause of democratic debate!

Apartheid is apartheid is apartheid. It is not a name given to an event. Its reality is in the actual conditions for Palestinians in the West Bank, the occupied territories and Gaza and the millions of refugees who have no right of return to their homeland. There can be no crossing the ideological lines here. Doing the right thing requires that we go beyond our short-term gains and limited political vision and think about the principles and the human lives involved, generation after generation.

Since you mentioned in your comment above the "Iranian women being tortured," I'd like to add, as a women's rights activist in Iran and in Canada, that although Iranian women appreciate the supportive sentiments of our sisters outside Iran, we don't appreciate being invoked as a cover up for otherwise faulty politics for we sure do not want to see what happened to Afghani and Iraqi women happen to us too under the name of democracy.

Lastly, as a long-time Palestine solidarity activist, I believe in the rights of Palestinians to set the agenda and priorities of their struggles. As someone else mentioned earlier in this thread, the call for boycott, divestment and sanctions came from over a hundred NGOs and civil rights organizations in Palestine and after decades of failure of international politics to ensure the rights of Palestinians and hold Israel accountable to international humanitarian laws.

Because in your comments in the legislature you reaffirmed your interest in democratic debates about Palestine-Israel, I'd like to propose that you facilitate and host such a debate with representatives from both sides of the apartheid wall. Otherwise, your vote with Shurman will stand as what it looks to be: an attempt to shut down free speech.

at the end of the day andrea has to attone for her sins. she allowed cheri to speak in favour of the resolution. their is no way that cheri just spoke in favour for the hell of it without the leaders office knowing.

it was private members business they had 3 items to deal with that afternoon. if cheri spoke without andrea's knowing about it then andrea is a very weak leader and should be replaced.

if andrea allowed cheri to speak in favour and has thrown her to the wolves because of it then andrea is a hypocrite.

either way i blame andrea for allowing this to happen

interesting that the majority of the anger is aimed at cheri but so little is aimed at teh leader of the party

Michelle i have been an andrea fan for a long time. she was mrs miles parents councillor in hamilton and is still their mpp. i have suppported her bid to run for mp in 1997 then her council runs and yes her provincial runs

so if i am pissed at andrea it is because she has let me down by being a weak leader. nothing happens at the park without the leaders office knowing that is just the way it is.

now michelle you can accuse me of anything you want but do not try to shift this bullshit back to me. i saw andrea last weekend and told her everything i posted here to her face. if she reads babble and this thread then she will know my "real identity"

very simply cheri is a threat to andrea and andrea found a way to neutralize her. period full stop. if andrea cared about the middle east or iaw either for or against she would have been in the chamber and spoken not issued a statement to try to appease both sides

but i guess it is easier to think that cheri is a rogue who acted alone and is now being punished. well that is simply bullshit. she spoke with the leaders knowledge and blessing. then when andrea felt the heat she issued a statement after the fact

if she cared so much then she shojld have stopped cheri from speaking in the first place. leadership is about leading not following.

but michelle go on thinking that cheri was a lone wolf acting alone if that is easier to stomach

at the end of the day andrea has to attone for her sins. she allowed cheri to speak in favour of the resolution. their is no way that cheri just spoke in favour for the hell of it without the leaders office knowing.

Well, I heard DiNovo speak like a little fascist - and I saw a very thoughtful note by Horwath criticizing Shurman's motion. That note is "atonement" enough for me.

Where the F is DiNovo's retraction, by the way?

Quote:

interesting that the majority of the anger is aimed at cheri but so little is aimed at teh leader of the party

Perhaps it's based on what they said publicly? Or are you having difficulty with that notion?

Bang on miles and I am stunned at the excuses people here have found for Horwath...amazing!!!

This is a repeat of what that "Gus" character was spouting. I pointed out to "Gus" that when your people have been through persecution and genocide, you develop a nose for who is a potential ally (Horwath) and who is not. I don't know what Horwath will say or do tomorrow. I do know that if we don't encourage our friends when they do the right thing, we have only ourselves to blame if they turn to shit (cf. Cheri DiNovo).

Oh, by the way, if any babbler is curious as to why the usual gang is freaking out against Andrea Horwath, it has nothing to do with her "leadership" qualities. It is because she said this:

Quote:

New Democrats are committed to working with partners for peace and justice in Israel and Palestine, within a framework of respect for UN resolutions and international law.

This means recognition of the right of both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peaceful co-existence in viable, independent states with negotiated, agreed-upon borders; no settlements remaining in the Palestinian state; an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian land; an end to loss of life of innocent civilians; and an international peacekeeping presence.

On Thursday, MPP Peter Shurman (Thornhill) introduced a private member’s motion that was divisive by nature. Singling out activists or shutting down debate, on this or any other matter, is not constructive and is entirely unhelpful.

The bolded portions make her my friend and their enemy. It ain't rocket science.

It's a good statement. Too bad that Andrea Horwath has been reluctant to be very public about it - basically this statement was distributed to a few people in the party upset about Cheri DiNovo's voting for Shurman's bill.

That's why she needs encouragement, praise, congratulations, LP. Otherwise she could be forgiven for believing that the creep DiNovo speaks for the rank and file.

ETA: Why doesn't some Ontarian start a Facebook page entitled: "Andrea Horwath is right - we need open debate about Israel and the Palestinians" - or something cleverer than that. You stick her letter right in the intro to the group, and then ask people to join. That way, you publicize the letter and earn support for her and the stand she took.

DiNovo's had a reputation as the "left wing" NDP MPP who was willing to take positions, support events and lend her name to causes that most elected NDPers would shy away from. Much like Dan Heap or Svend Robinson used to do. And a lot of people who are generally disillusioned or unimpressed by the NDP would make an exception for DiNovo. I think that's why a lot of people were shocked by her comments, particularly youths and students for whom the Palestinian cause is *the* civil rights issue just as South Africa was in the 80s or the US civil rights was in the 60s.

For the activist community I think the shine has come off DiNovo and she'll have to work to earn back the goodwill she had and may not succeed.

I feel as though Im in Alice in Wonderland. Michelle tries to link miles with me. Yet i can assure you I have no idea who miles is and could care less other than he writes with some rationale.

If Horwath was at all serious she would have cried her protest to the heavens. No she issued a statement to a couple people and some here think that is just peachy. It has been a long time since I have seen such political naivety. It is in fact breathtaking!

I haven't read the deleted comments, but if the complete lack of generosity and the disingenuousness shown here (particularly by Michelle and Unionist) is any indication, I simply ask what exactly is the problem with deleting and defriending people who post on one's own wall? It seems to me its tantamount to coming into my home and disrespecting me so I show you the door. If people want to attack her, can they not do it on their own walls or to correspond with her through official channels? Or do people now need their often bullying, cynical and disingenuous attacks on others publicly upheld and displayed by the person they've attacked????

Unionist and Michelle you sound more like jilted lovers than reasonable intelligent people, but I can see your frothing at the mouth, so don't let me interrupt your feeding frenzy--- as if facts and reason could get in the way of that misplaced indignation.

For the activist community I think the shine has come off DiNovo and she'll have to work to earn back the goodwill she had and may not succeed.

Well, I admire her social networking skills. She is implementing Shurman's "shut down the debate" motion right on her own Facebook page! Can't call her a hypocrite.

One can, however, question her focus on reality. I'm still rather perplexed at her support for Shurman on the ground (among others) that Jews begin the Seder with a prayer for their "enemies", the Egyptians!

I am almost afraid to post. I'm sure Michelle will accuse me of being part of the calvary. You see anyone who disagrees with popular opinion is lumped together and demonized. Familiar tactic.

For the record I support Dinovo as unpopular as that may be. I also believe, knowing how the ONDP caucus is structured, that Cheri's comments in the Legislature were unquestionably pre-authorized by the leader.

The way these things work, for the novices here, is that in public the Tories, Libs and NDP appear to be each others sworn political enemies. In private when such a private member's resolution is put forward the ground is always tested. It is simply impossible then that Andrea Horwath was unaware of Shurman's resolution. In fact my guess is she specifically chose Cheri to speak on the resolution and that her words were also pre-authorized. And yes Cheri is being a good soldier. She is taking the heat while the Leader is finding ways to contort herself while those gullible enough to want to believe her do so.

Honestly I feel very sorry for people like Unionist and Michelle. leaving aside the issue itself, to be on a politically active board such as this and know so litlte of the inner workings of party politics is just really sad.

Cheri DiNovo commented on her status: "Amazing...so women are not allowed to speak about women's rights without subsuming those rights to another cause! It was a voice vote which both Rosario and I abstained from. There were only 30 there because only 30 were on house duty, for no other reason. I simply among other aspects, defended the federal NDP position. They don't use the term apartheid either. Sexism lives!"

Honestly I feel very sorry for people like Unionist and Michelle. leaving aside the issue itself, to be on a politically active board such as this and know so litlte of the inner workings of party politics is just really sad.

Thank you. You see, it's my parents. They were poor, hard-working immigrants. They taught me that Canada was a wonderful country, a land of freedom. Now you're telling me that poiltics are a dirty thing. That when Cheri DiNovo talks shit, there's actually a puppetmaster behind her - that she is good, and the one who talks sense is a liar. That good is evil and day is night. I am ashamed. Thank you, Prophit. You have helped me to see the future! Is that where your name comes from? And here I thought it had to do with someone making money from other people's labour...

Unionist, you're real precious. You speak with impunity. You bully those that would be bullied. You speak with the certainty and arrogance unbecoming of anyone who truly has reverence for knowledge and nuance. You launch ad hominem attacks on public figures who have probably spent more years publicly fighting social injustice than you have years.

Yet you think nothing of asking me to be banned for far less. I know I had promised to exile myself from this forum, but I will neither do the dirty work for you, nor will I abandon my voice to the likes of you and Michelle (spiteful, arrogant, cynical voices).

I don't know about Seder supper orthodoxies, but I have no reason to think DiNovo would lie about having partaken in a "Seder" in which said events occurred. Besides, the idea of loving one's enemy, the idea of engaging one's enemy in loving adherence to truth and justice does have its proponents (Christ, Gandhi, Tibetan Buddhism, Derridean deconstruction). I've always respected the idea that violence is never justified because means and ends are inextricably interdependent.

All to say no matter how noble your goals around here, the violence you do to language, to thinking, and to debate is never excusable.

I never asked for you to be banned. Don't flatter yourself. Your pomposity is not worth such harsh measures. I don't support banning anyone except open trolls. Not even you. You must stay - you just need a rest, that's all.

Quote:

I know I had promised to exile myself from this forum, but I will neither do the dirty work for you, nor will I abandon my voice to the likes of you and Michelle (spiteful, arrogant, cynical voices).

You would never survive in exile. You haven't got what it takes. But Michelle and I don't mind the namecalling. Except when it comes from sentient carbon-based life forms.

Quote:

I don't know about Seder supper orthodoxies, but I have no reason to think DiNovo would lie about having partaken in a "Seder" in which said events occurred.

She didn't lie. She's just an ignorant self-important pompous boob. No relative of yours, I hope, and if so, no offence intended.

Quote:

Besides, the idea of loving one's enemy, the idea of engaging one's enemy in loving adherence to truth and justice does have its proponents (Christ, Gandhi, Tibetan Buddhism, Derridean deconstruction).

Sorry, it's an idea that's foreign to the Jewish faith, of which you are obviously woefully ignorant. "Ve'ahavta le'reacha camocha" - love thy neighbour as thyself - and the sages interpret "neighbour" as being other Jews. That's our principle. It was Jesus that said "love thy enemy", which is probably where Idiot DiNovo got confused. In the Pesach Seder, we intone: "Shfoch hamatcha al ha'goyim asher lo yedaucha" - pour out Thy wrath upon the Gentiles who did not know You. It ain't pretty, but it's Jewish. Not like that soppy DiNovo, trying to teach us universal love.

What I am saying is that people, yes even politicians are bullied and taunted into doing things they shouldn't. I do not know what the record shows since there was no recorded vote. I do know that Cheri spoke in support of the resolution in the House. That people like you and others have tried to shame her for doing so is what I fear she has reacted to. That people like you and others have given Horwath a "get out of jail free" card is even more disingeuous in my books.

Jaku, has it ever occurred to you that it would be a better use of your time to actually work against those things in Israeli policy that make people feel that the term "apartheid" is a valud description of the Israeli government's treament of the Palestinians than it could ever be for you to endlessly complain about people using the term "apartheid" to describe said treatment?

If preserving that state is that important to you, it would behoove you to work with all your might for an end to the Occupation (and also an end to all discriminatory treatment of Israeli Arabs). That would do far more to stop people using the "a-word" than saying that they SHOULDN'T use it.

Sure you have. See my post #1 above. All those very respectful comments have since been deleted by the Reverend C. DiNovo.

She is a person of spirituality. She had to delete any comments not only critical of her, but pleading with her to look at both sides of the issue.

Her heavy-handed censorship is in the same spirit as the only "democracy" in the Middle East; the same spirit as her maudlin support for Peter Shurman's attack on Jewish and non-Jewish anti-apartheid activists; and the same spirit as Bernie Farber's warning to the United Church to have nothing to do with Independent Jewish Voices.

Hers is the spirit of Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney, who are preparing the groundwork to charge anti-apartheid activists with "hate speech" under the Criminal Code.

What if it was? You can certainly write something down and be off message. I know you're investing a lot in your speculation that DiNovo is some heroic defender of Zion who is being oppressed by the evil Horwath but as much as we both think Israel/Palestine issues are the dominant matters of our time the reality is that a resolution, particularly one that is really on international politics, ranks fairly low on the priority list for provincial politicians. If it didn't you would have had more than 30 MPPs present and there would have been a recorded vote for the sake of posterity.

DiNovo's speech was a rambling, poorly written affair and I doubt it was "vetted" because believe me, if it was vetted by the leader's office or the party it would have been watered down to insignificance. She doesn't actually say "we support" or "I support the resolution because..." It sounds to me like the NDP decided to abstain and simply have someone state party policy (two state solution), DiNovo misperceiving this as a religious issue volunteered to speak on the party's behalf and went off messagere embelishing her comments with her religious views, anecdotes, and forgetting that the issue is a minefield for the NDP and deciding to tromp through the field like she was stomping on grapes to make wine. The next day the party issues a carefully written statement in an attempt to clarify its position,

She has said she abstained in the actual vote. It may be important for you, Jaku, to believe that she didn't but by doing so you're calling her a liar.

We can each have our perspectives aka Mycroft. And I seem to be investing far less in this as are you...I am simply engaging in a discussion on babble. You however as evidenced from your posts are all over the social network advocating, lobbying presenting information, capturing posts on facebook. I have a realistic sense of the import of such a resolution in the legislature which amounts to diddley-squat. You on the other hand seem a bit more obsessed with it as is your right. Have fun.

I have a realistic sense of the import of such a resolution in the legislature which amounts to diddley-squat.

Which is exactly why the NDP would not have bothered havinhg DiNovo's speech vetted and precisely why the most likely explanation is the one I've given - the NDP decided to abstain, DiNovo veered off message in a rambling speech, forgot the central message, and the party attempted damage control after the fact.

aka that sounds like good spin. unfort after talking to an inner circle mpp it seems that cheri did not go off script. she did not forget anything. rather she spoke with the approval of the leader and better yet andrea approved the speech as delivered.

Thank-you Unionist. I've now been put in my rightful place in the deranged hierarchy around here.

One thing I can't say about you is that you have no gall. Your arrogance is perhaps only outdone by your impudence. And when people call you out for dismissing the seriousness of a student at York being investigate for his wantonly anti-Semitic website, as happened in a parallel thread, you respond with "The hallmark of our people is our sense of humour - our key to survival through eons of persecution - along with our solidarity with others and not taking ourselves too seriously. You just ain't got it."

Isn't that nice! Thrash around here with indignant impunity and then charge us with not being able to take a joke when someone complains that your bullsh*t stinks. However, for me, much more troubling than your thoughtless recourse to ad hominem attacks and name calling ("hallmarks" of deep insecurity or coddled upbringing) is your unabashed essentialism/ fundamentalism. For it is my view that fundamentalism be it Christian, Islamic, Atheist (e.g. Richard Dawkins), Intellectual, Political (rabid Leftists who exonerate "the worker" or "the victim" by elevating victimhood to the untouchable heights of sublimity) etc. is the greatest crisis facing the 21st century, and which is why the world of critical thought needs Jacques Derrida today more than ever.

Surely statements like "the hallmark of our people is our sense of humour" or hating your enemy isn't pretty, it's Jewish could use a little rigour, nuance, and humility. Or if you don't think that speaking with absolute authority on behalf of an entire people gathered together over the course of thousands of years is problematic, then I can plainly see that you're not here to debate, you're here to consolidate. And also goes a long way to explaining yours and Michelle's unhinged derangement at being challenged by DiNovo.

But do proceed with the puerile name calling and personal attacks which, given that I know what both you and Michelle look like, seems like an odd place from which to start. And that's as far as I'll join you in the school sandbox. But you have strengthened my resolve to hang around, at least until I'm kicked out.

aka that sounds like good spin. unfort after talking to an inner circle mpp it seems that cheri did not go off script. she did not forget anything. rather she spoke with the approval of the leader and better yet andrea approved the speech as delivered.

So are you saying she's lying when she says that she and Marchese abstained because tha would have to be the case if her speech wasn't off message?

I haven't read the deleted comments, but if the complete lack of generosity and the disingenuousness shown here (particularly by Michelle and Unionist) is any indication, I simply ask what exactly is the problem with deleting and defriending people who post on one's own wall?

Unionist and Michelle you sound more like jilted lovers than reasonable intelligent people, but I can see your frothing at the mouth, so don't let me interrupt your feeding frenzy

Here's what I posted on Cheri's thread yesterday that she deleted. You can decide for yourself whether it lacked generosity, was disingenuous, a feeding frenzy, or made me sound like a jilted lover:

Quote:

I would just like to add my voice to many others who were disappointed with your support for Peter Shurman's motion, which targeted Palestinian rights activists as purveyors of "hate speech" and anti-semites.Standing in solidarity with oppressors against activists and against the oppressed is relevant to International Women's Day.I consider anti-racism and anti-colonialism to be a deep part of my feminism, just as I'm sure you consider your fabulous work in anti-poverty activism to be a deep part of yours.

I respect you a lot as a politician and a person, Cheri, which is why your words in support of that Conservative motion and thanking Shurman for bringing it forward (whether you abstained or not - I'm not sure how you can "abstain" during a voice vote anyhow, especially after speaking in favour of it) really hurt those of us who have participated in or support Israeli Apartheid Week.You not only helped Conservatives label us as anti-semites in the Legislature and the media, but you also helped lend legitimacy to their movement to try to pressure university administrators to end Palestinian rights activism on campus.

aka that sounds like good spin. unfort after talking to an inner circle mpp it seems that cheri did not go off script. she did not forget anything. rather she spoke with the approval of the leader and better yet andrea approved the speech as delivered.

Whoever told you that is a liar, and probably not even an MPP. I talked to someone even closer to the inner circle who told me that the circumference (DiNovo) got way too far from the centre (Horwath), and that the radius was going to be tightened in the future. Naturally, I can't disclose my phoney impeccable source in public, because there would be consequences - if you know what I mean. If you don't understand my cryptic epigrams, just ask those Jewish students who are literally trembling in fear of the anti-semites every time they set foot on one of our university campuses.

Let me try to sum up in simpler language:

Horwath spoke about the occupation and the settlements - HORWATH IS EVIL.

DiNovo condemned the Jews and non-Jews of conscience and called for peace above justice in the Middle East - DINOVO IS A SAINT.

This whole thing is sad, because I really meant what I said in that message I put on Cheri's wall. I really do respect her as a politician and as a person - she's done really amazing work on anti-poverty issues. Which is why it is incomprehensible to me why she would speak in support of a Conservative motion that labels many of her allies as purveyors of hate speech (even if the "abstained" whatever that means in a voice vote that isn't counted). That doesn't mean I've written her off completely. But I think she doesn't realize just how deeply she has alienated and hurt people who really believed in her politics and activism otherwise.

And the response is fascinating just from the point of view of someone who is interested in how social media is changing the political landscape. Politicians are using social networking sites in order to make themselves seem down-to-earth, as "one of the people" and just your average joe(sephine) next door. They're trying to seem accessible and hip and open to conversation with 4000 of their closest friends...until their friends have something to say that they don't like. Then it's back into inaccessible politician mode - damage control and spin.

But it doesn't work that well, because all those people she invited to be "friends" with her aren't sitting back and accepting her "defriending" and deleting of their comments - and because the medium is relatively democratic, they can create a FB group that gets at least as much, if not more, attention than the original thread on Cheri's wall. So much for damage control.

What can I say - I find it fascinating. Politics is changing. And it's getting a lot more personal now that politicians are pretending to be our "friends" on social networking sites.

P.S. In case any newcomers to the thread haven't seen this (I notice that the "I was defriended" FB group is linking to this thread), here is Andrea Horwath's open letter denouncing the Shurman motion:

OPEN LETTER FROM ANDREA HORWATH

Dear friend,

New Democrats are committed to working with partners for peace and justice in Israel and Palestine, within a framework of respect for UN resolutions and international law.

This means recognition of the right of both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peaceful co-existence in viable, independent states with negotiated, agreed-upon borders; no settlements remaining in the Palestinian state; an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian land; an end to loss of life of innocent civilians; and an international peacekeeping presence.

On Thursday, MPP Peter Shurman (Thornhill) introduced a private member's motion that was divisive by nature. Singling out activists or shutting down debate, on this or any other matter, is not constructive and is entirely unhelpful.

Ontario's New Democrats believe in finding avenues towards a peaceful solution in the Middle East. MPP Peter Shurman's motion did not contribute to that in any way.